Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
TOP NEWS   LeftArrow - Townhall.com   RightArrow - Townhall.com  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Josh Wolf -- Blogger -- Has No Press Pass
By Debra J. Saunders
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Do you personally know a young voter who has been sucked into Obamamania?


Josh Wolf, the blogger who has spent some six months in prison for refusing to hand over a video he took of a violent July 8, 2005, protest in the Mission District of San Francisco to a federal grand jury, is not a journalist.

He is a blogger with an agenda and a camera, who sold a "selected portion" of the video of the demonstration, which left a San Francisco police officer with a fractured skull, to KRON-TV. The day after the melee, Wolf called himself on his videoblog an "artist, an activist, an anarchist and an archivist." He does not work for a news organization. He does not answer to editors who fact-check. I do not understand why newspapers -- including The San Francisco Chronicle -- refer to him as the "longest-imprisoned journalist" in America.

San Francisco Assemblyman Mark Leno, who has spoken at Wolf fundraisers, told me, "I think he, and those who are doing similar kind of work, is in the process of redefining what a journalist is relative to 21st century technology." In this brave new world, no definition is sacred any more. But a camera and a Website do not a journalist make, any more than shooting a criminal makes a vigilante a cop.

Wolf likes to put himself in the company of real journalists, such as The Chronicle's Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada, who risked going to jail in order to protect their confidential source in the BALCO story. But unlike Fainaru-Wada and Williams, Wolf had no confidential source agreement. He was filming public protests -- those protesters had no expectation of privacy.

Because he can't hide behind a confidential source agreement, Wolf has had to get creative. So, in a friend-of-the-court brief, the ACLU warned that if Wolf is viewed by anarchists and antiwar groups "as cooperating with the government, he will no longer be able to perform his vital role of covering these groups."

Wolf's actions, however, make a mockery of the ACLU argument. Wolf offered to show the outtakes of his video to a federal judge, just to prove that the video does not depict the police attacks in question. The judge refused.

I do not support the feds' action of putting Wolf in prison for some six months while they seem to be fishing for evidence. As Leno noted, "I think it's important for people to realize that this man has been held in federal prison, he has never been charged with a crime and never been convicted of a crime, and they are treating him like a very dangerous criminal."

Readers, therefore, should ask whether jailing Wolf for months is worth the cost to the taxpayers. He attacked no one. It is not even clear that his video implicates anyone -- or that investigators could not use some other footage to find out who attacked two city cops and damaged their patrol car. Then there's the question as to whether the U.S. attorney even has jurisdiction here, even if the SFPD does receive federal funds.

Peter Shields, the San Francisco cop who was out of work for a year after his skull was fractured in the incident, has little problem with Wolf's incarceration. Shields also is none too happy that the San Francisco supervisors "immediately" mobilized to show support for Wolf's cause. "Why couldn't they do that to find who hit me?" Shields asked over coffee Monday morning.

Shields took Spanish classes so that he could better serve the diverse Mission District where he is stationed. He was furious to see the activists, who say they support the poor, trashing a vibrant, diverse working-class neighborhood during the protest. When he arrived on the scene, he said, "they were destroying property. They were endangering lives."

What if he were attacked not because he is a cop, but because he is a gay man? Shields, who is gay, said people here would be "furious." He added, "If this chaos happened in the Castro, there would not be this hoopla, if you will, around the Josh Wolf videotape." But there is no public outrage, he added, "just because I put on a uniform."

Alas, in the Special City, attacking a gay man is a hate crime, while attacking a gay cop can be a cause celebre.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Debra Saunders' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Subject: A journalism perspective
In college, where I received a BA in print journalism, much was made of our "right" to protect our sources. It was taught pretty much as an obligation. Even then, in early 80s, the law did not protect journalists from jail if they chose to protect a source to which the government wanted access. We were told that we could and would go to jail for protecting our sources. We were also told that the law was wrong and that we had an ethical responsibility to protect our sources.

I've never been in a position of needing to protect a source, but can imagine that in some situations, a reporter's career would hang in the balance. If he revealed his source, it's likely no other source would ever feel safe speaking with him again.

Now, having said that, there are instances where I would reveal a source, but I don't think I ever would have offered them confidentiality in those instances. If it involves a child at risk, for instance, I'm not protecting the perpetrator.

BTW, anyone can become a reporter. You do not need a degree to be hired by a newspaper or broadcast outlet. In fact, I contend that the problem with journalism today is that so few reporters and broadcasters ever went to college for journalism and have never studied the Code of Professional Journalists. That's why they act the way they do, because they are ignorant and believe there are no rules governing the collection and dissemination of news. There are; you just can't tell because most "journalists" don't bother to live up to them.

Also, I really think this man doesn't qualify as a journalist, for a couple of reasons. I think it's a little whishy to say that a blogger can't be a journalist. I think some bloggers are moving in that direction. So, we want to be careful about saying that because, well, they may be the wave of the future. So, there's a partial argument there, but I don't like falling on one side or the other.

On the other hand, this guy sold an edited copy of his tape to a broadcast outlet and I think that's where the problem lies. Of course reporters are paid for what they do and I would not hesitate to report and try to sell my article to the newspaper if I happened upon a riot somewhere. That's what journalists do. However, when you start selling edited copies to third-parties, you're on shaking ground for claiming journalistic privilege. I think this is what makes his claim shaky.

Moreover, if this was a public demonstration, what source could he possibly be protecting? Given that, I think he's either just being an idiot or he's trying to make a career for himself. Being in the news will make you famous.

News flash, though, fella! Being famous doesn't necessarily make you a good journalist. By and large, journalists report the news; they try not to become the news.

Bizarre law
'Alas, in the Special City, attacking a gay man is a hate crime, while attacking a gay cop can be a cause celebre.'

This is what happens when the law emphasizes the motive and not the act. Hate crime law is an abomination and a distortion of the law.

By the way, I don't believe he should have to produce the video - he has property rights. They may be available for the right price, however. This is like a judge putting a person in jail until he agrees to hand over his house

I wonder why this wasn't even brought up as an issue - he already has sold a portion of it? Perhaps for the same reason we are only allowed to donate our organs - heaven forbid that we might ask for money. But I do agree that the judge has no business putting him in jail.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily dose of conservative columns, editorial cartoons, talk radio, news, and more!
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.